Crime Prevention With Rational Choice Theory

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Effective crime prevention significantly depends on the criminal justice system’s ability to explain criminality and develop corresponding crime prevention interventions. In particular, choice theories attempt to explain criminality by exploring the logical reasoning that drives individuals into committing crimes. For instance, the traditional rational choice theory (RCT) focuses on decision-making processes incentivizing offending (Thomas et al., 2020). The RCT posits that individuals evaluate criminal opportunities by weighing potential rewards against the risks associated with the offense (Becker, 1968, as cited in Ray et al., 2020, p. 1). Individuals commit crimes when the perceived rewards are greater than the risks. If the risks outweigh the rewards, the individuals decide against offending.

Discussion

This straightforward logic suggests that crime can be prevented by specific interventions that increase the risks associated with criminal offenses. For example, the situational crime prevention strategy (SCP) utilizes increased closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera coverage in target areas. Improved surveillance was associated with significant reductions in certain offenses, such as vehicle and property crimes (Piza et al., 2019). In this case, the RCT suggested that potential offenders refrain from crime out of rational fear of being recorded on CCTV cameras. The criminal justice system adopted the intervention and received favorable results by discouraging potential offenders from vehicle and property crimes.

However, pure, traditional RCT has limited application for explaining certain types of crime. For example, the RCT-based CCTV intervention had no significant effects on violent crime reduction (Piza et al., 2019). Offenders who had committed violent crimes regardless of CCTV surveillance had a different perception of risks and rewards; their thinking was irrational from the RCT perspective. Furthermore, intrinsic rewards associated with a particular type of crime may be the opposite. For example, both burglary and armed robbery fall under the property crimes category. However, armed robbers found burglary slow and boring, whereas burglars were excited by the sneaky process of breaking (Wright & Decker, 1997; Shover, 1996, as cited in Thomas et al., 2020, p. 5). One can see that two types of offenders demonstrated the opposite attitude toward intrinsic rewards, which would require different approaches to reward reduction and risk increase. In this regard, the traditional RCT lacks the generality to explain specific types of crime or different ways of committing a particular crime type.

In addition, the traditional RCT has limited recognition of the emotional and psychological factors in offending. The RCT’s logic is simple — individuals commit crimes when the rewards outweigh the risks. As such, increased risks of crime detection and arrest would likely produce a sufficient deterrent effect. However, people may have vastly different emotional reactions to risk-producing interventions. According to Jacobs and Cherbonneau (2019), increased risks can make crime more rewarding to some offenders, as they have to overcome fears and anxiety that deter others. As a result, crime turns into an accomplishment in itself, and risk-producing interventions based on the RCT may become counterproductive.

In addition, pure RCT may be insufficient for explaining nuances associated with the psychological and social profiles of the offenders. For instance, individuals with higher psychopathy levels tend to have a reward-dominant response style about crime opportunities (Frick et al., 2003; Pardini, 2006, as cited in Ray et al., 2020, p. 8). From the traditional RCT’s standpoint, the high perception of reward would serve as a linkage between psychopathy and an individual’s predisposition to crime. However, Ray et al. (2020) also found that young offenders who scored higher on the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) weighed the perceived risks of crime more heavily. In other words, individuals with elevated psychopathy levels may be more mindful of personal risks coming from criminal behavior. Instead of blindly pursuing the reward, crime-prone psychopathic individuals may become more likely to be deterred from crime because they take risks seriously. As such, the traditional RCT has a limited capacity for criminality explanation in non-standard population groups due to its simplified binary logic that reduces offenses to calculated choice.

Conclusion

Given this information, one can claim that the traditional RCT can rarely be used as a reliable standalone crime theory. Pure RCT, where criminal decisions are based on crime opportunity evaluation, is insufficient in various scenarios. In particular, the traditional RCT faces problems explaining violent crime and irrational risk and reward perceptions of the offenders. Additionally, this theory has limited applicability for criminality explanation and deterrence in offender groups with non-standard psychological and social profiles. The traditional RCT appears sufficient for explaining and preventing non-violent property crimes, where reward and risk factors behind the offenders’ decisions are relatively clear. However, the theory requires incorporating psychological, behavioral, and sociological elements to explain criminality in more complex environments and populations. Developing effective crime prevention policies requires a correct theoretical basis; in this regard, the traditional RCT may be insufficient for providing an accurate explanation of criminality. As a result, the interventions based on the RCT alone may be ineffective for crime deterrence and prevention goals.

References

Jacobs, B. A., & Cherbonneau, M. (2019). Reconciling emotion and rational choice: Negativistic auto theft, consequence irrelevance, and the seduction of destruction.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(6), 783-815. Web.

Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Thomas, A. L. (2019). CCTV surveillance for crime prevention: A 40‐year systematic review with meta‐analysis.Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 135-159. Web.

Ray, J. V., Baker, T., & Caudy, M. S. (2020). Revisiting the generality of rational choice theory: Evidence for general patterns but differential effects across varying levels of psychopathy.Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 1-11. Web.

Thomas, K. J., Loughran, T. A., & Hamilton, B. C. (2020). Perceived arrest risk, psychic rewards, and offense specialization: A partial test of rational choice theory.Criminology, 58(3), 1-25. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Crime Prevention With Rational Choice Theory

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)